5 ms·

I'm no expert but 2030 isn't very far away and I'd think that 2030 consumer level tech will be based off what is cutting edge today. Can someone school me on h

by DIVx0 5y ago

I'm no expert but 2030 isn't very far away and I'd think that 2030 consumer level tech will be based off what is cutting edge today. Can someone school me on how a level 5 system might work in a snow storm on icy roads at highway speeds in 2030?

belter 5y ago
It wont. I am betting with Jeff Atwood. In any case with the current rate of inflation, in 2030, 10,000 dollars will the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte...
giarc 5y ago
I think by definition a level 5 system can do in winter exactly what it can do in ideal situations. See the chart on the linked page... "The feature can drive the vehicle under all conditions".
- DIVx0 5y ago
  yeah.. I was not asking what L5 means. I am genuinely curious to what technology, based on my assumption it grew out of today's tech, a car would need to have onboard to safely operate at L5 under all conditions.
simonh 5y ago
The bet says within cities, and humans struggle with those sorts of extreme conditions too. Natural disasters and emergencies are excepted. I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. I'm with Jeff, self driving cars have been just a few years away for well over a decade now. I think it's one of those cases where the last 10% of the problem takes 90% of the effort. If we built cities and the road infrastructure around self driving capability that might work, but currently cities aren't built that way and that wouldn't meet the definition of Level 5 anyway.
- DIVx0 5y ago
  That's what I'm thinking would be required, infrastructure changes and not solely 100% onboard technology. 8 years is not enough time for cities to plan for and build enough of that infrastructure (not to mention, what to build?) for an automaker to commit to a level 5 car when they are already struggling with L3.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  If you want to see a city-based stress test, I'd like to see "drive from JFK to EWR at 4pm on a Friday".
  - songshu 5y ago
    Not a fun drive, but via Staten Island would be all highways, no?
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      Yeah, that's too easy. Add "via the Manhattan Bridge and the Holland Tunnel".
- nicwolff 5y ago
  > I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. I think that's a fallacy. We allow humans to injure and kill each other in "accidents" with limited liability because we are human; I can't be expected to 100% reliably decide in a fraction of a second what to do when a car cuts me off, so if I hit it, or avoid it and hit another vehicle or pedestrian, I don't go to jail. But a computer can be expected to make that decision fast enough; if it can't, it's because the designers or programmers made errors that the manufacturer missed because they rationally calculated they were not worth catching or fixing. There's some level of safe driving it's unreasonable to expect from self-driving cars – but it's not the same level as humans.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > But a computer can be expected to make that decision fast enough I don't think this expectation is reasonable. It makes sense only if you conceive of humans as flawed computers. But certainly it is an expectation people have, including a large segment (if not majority) of HN readers, and this expectation is absolutely slowing development and adoption of the technology.
- johngalt 5y ago
  > I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. From a practical/logical sense this is true, but I'm not sure it would work out that way. People would never accept FSD cars with accident/injury rates comparable with humans. FSD would have to be at least 10x better than human drivers, maybe more. Psychologically we are much more risk averse to when not in control. It's why people are afraid of elevators but not stairs, despite a 50x difference in safety. Historically computers go from "barely able to do X", to "better than any human could ever be" very quickly. I'm with Carmack on this bet.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The more inserting thing to me is will people accept FSD cars that tell them "no"? For example, we're about to get freezing sleet here, and a FSD car may very well decide "this is an impossible situation to drive safely" and refuse to move. And it may very well be right; most people way overestimate how good they are at driving in very adverse conditions.
    - sib 5y ago
      And what about when "Mom is in the backseat having a heart attack and we need to try to get to the hospital" is added to the equation?
      - bombcar 5y ago
        A “ambulance mode” could be added (and in fact might be nice once enough cars are FSD and can get out of the way). We already have things like this “what if I had a beer and need to drive mom to the hospital” say those with a enforced breathalyzer.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    You can probably manage to have 10x less chance of a serious accident than the average human by being sober, calm, attentive and caring about braking distances anyway. "Approximately as well as a human", measured by a pool of human accidents dominated by serious driver failings is a pretty low bar.
- xondono 5y ago
  > The bet says within cities Cities have fast roads too. > humans struggle with those sorts of extreme conditions too People drive in a wide range of weathers. If you need to check the weather in a major city every day to see if your will drive itself, your car is not self driving (IMO). If that weather happens more than 5-10% of days every year, that’s not an “extreme condition”.
Dylan16807 5y ago
By "highway speeds" do you mean appropriate for the weather, or going at the speed limit? A car should be able to see better than a human in those conditions, and at an appropriate speed it could be reasonably safe. It probably won't go at the speed limit, but a human can't safely drive at the speed limit either.
natch 5y ago
“Highway speeds” sounds a bit dramatic. In a snow storm on icy roads it’s safe to assume the speeds would be as slow as safety dictates, just as the speeds should also be for humans in the same conditions. Also, computerized traction control is amazing, especially with electric drive and no transmission lag. When driven by a human it’s not infallible, but if the car doesn’t have the flawed yet behaviors that humans sometimes have, it could be pretty competent. They’ll have to get it to the point of being able to do without lane lines too of course.
- DIVx0 5y ago
  As someone who lives in a region where snowfall and icy roads are common I know for a fact that traffic regularly flows at highway speeds in those conditions. Level 5 implies "all conditions" so it follows an autonomous system should be able to safely operate along side human drivers. If a level 5 system cant keep up it would become a major hazard to non autonomous vehicles.
  - TillE 5y ago
    Driving the speed limit or higher on an icy road is wildly reckless, it would be insane to program a computer to do that, regardless of whether you could.
  - natch 5y ago
    If humans can do it safely, a self driving car should (in the future when they really arrive) also be able to do it safely. But, what you describe does not meet the basic criteria for doing it safely. Regularly flowing at highway speeds in those conditions does not imply doing it safely, as much as you and those drivers might like it to. We read about pileups from time to time and the consequences of these are not trivial.

by DIVx0 5y ago

belter 5y ago

It wont. I am betting with Jeff Atwood. In any case with the current rate of inflation, in 2030, 10,000 dollars will the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte...

giarc 5y ago

I think by definition a level 5 system can do in winter exactly what it can do in ideal situations. See the chart on the linked page... "The feature can drive the vehicle under all conditions".

DIVx0 5y ago
yeah.. I was not asking what L5 means. I am genuinely curious to what technology, based on my assumption it grew out of today's tech, a car would need to have onboard to safely operate at L5 under all conditions.

simonh 5y ago

The bet says within cities, and humans struggle with those sorts of extreme conditions too. Natural disasters and emergencies are excepted. I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. I'm with Jeff, self driving cars have been just a few years away for well over a decade now. I think it's one of those cases where the last 10% of the problem takes 90% of the effort. If we built cities and the road infrastructure around self driving capability that might work, but currently cities aren't built that way and that wouldn't meet the definition of Level 5 anyway.

DIVx0 5y ago
That's what I'm thinking would be required, infrastructure changes and not solely 100% onboard technology. 8 years is not enough time for cities to plan for and build enough of that infrastructure (not to mention, what to build?) for an automaker to commit to a level 5 car when they are already struggling with L3.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
If you want to see a city-based stress test, I'd like to see "drive from JFK to EWR at 4pm on a Friday".
- songshu 5y ago
  Not a fun drive, but via Staten Island would be all highways, no?
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    Yeah, that's too easy. Add "via the Manhattan Bridge and the Holland Tunnel".
nicwolff 5y ago
> I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. I think that's a fallacy. We allow humans to injure and kill each other in "accidents" with limited liability because we are human; I can't be expected to 100% reliably decide in a fraction of a second what to do when a car cuts me off, so if I hit it, or avoid it and hit another vehicle or pedestrian, I don't go to jail. But a computer can be expected to make that decision fast enough; if it can't, it's because the designers or programmers made errors that the manufacturer missed because they rationally calculated they were not worth catching or fixing. There's some level of safe driving it's unreasonable to expect from self-driving cars – but it's not the same level as humans.
- wahern 5y ago
  > But a computer can be expected to make that decision fast enough I don't think this expectation is reasonable. It makes sense only if you conceive of humans as flawed computers. But certainly it is an expectation people have, including a large segment (if not majority) of HN readers, and this expectation is absolutely slowing development and adoption of the technology.
johngalt 5y ago
> I suppose it just needs to do approximately as well as a human. From a practical/logical sense this is true, but I'm not sure it would work out that way. People would never accept FSD cars with accident/injury rates comparable with humans. FSD would have to be at least 10x better than human drivers, maybe more. Psychologically we are much more risk averse to when not in control. It's why people are afraid of elevators but not stairs, despite a 50x difference in safety. Historically computers go from "barely able to do X", to "better than any human could ever be" very quickly. I'm with Carmack on this bet.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The more inserting thing to me is will people accept FSD cars that tell them "no"? For example, we're about to get freezing sleet here, and a FSD car may very well decide "this is an impossible situation to drive safely" and refuse to move. And it may very well be right; most people way overestimate how good they are at driving in very adverse conditions.
  - sib 5y ago
    And what about when "Mom is in the backseat having a heart attack and we need to try to get to the hospital" is added to the equation?
    - bombcar 5y ago
      A “ambulance mode” could be added (and in fact might be nice once enough cars are FSD and can get out of the way). We already have things like this “what if I had a beer and need to drive mom to the hospital” say those with a enforced breathalyzer.
- notahacker 5y ago
  You can probably manage to have 10x less chance of a serious accident than the average human by being sober, calm, attentive and caring about braking distances anyway. "Approximately as well as a human", measured by a pool of human accidents dominated by serious driver failings is a pretty low bar.
xondono 5y ago
> The bet says within cities Cities have fast roads too. > humans struggle with those sorts of extreme conditions too People drive in a wide range of weathers. If you need to check the weather in a major city every day to see if your will drive itself, your car is not self driving (IMO). If that weather happens more than 5-10% of days every year, that’s not an “extreme condition”.

Dylan16807 5y ago

By "highway speeds" do you mean appropriate for the weather, or going at the speed limit? A car should be able to see better than a human in those conditions, and at an appropriate speed it could be reasonably safe. It probably won't go at the speed limit, but a human can't safely drive at the speed limit either.

natch 5y ago

“Highway speeds” sounds a bit dramatic. In a snow storm on icy roads it’s safe to assume the speeds would be as slow as safety dictates, just as the speeds should also be for humans in the same conditions. Also, computerized traction control is amazing, especially with electric drive and no transmission lag. When driven by a human it’s not infallible, but if the car doesn’t have the flawed yet behaviors that humans sometimes have, it could be pretty competent. They’ll have to get it to the point of being able to do without lane lines too of course.

DIVx0 5y ago
As someone who lives in a region where snowfall and icy roads are common I know for a fact that traffic regularly flows at highway speeds in those conditions. Level 5 implies "all conditions" so it follows an autonomous system should be able to safely operate along side human drivers. If a level 5 system cant keep up it would become a major hazard to non autonomous vehicles.
- TillE 5y ago
  Driving the speed limit or higher on an icy road is wildly reckless, it would be insane to program a computer to do that, regardless of whether you could.
- natch 5y ago
  If humans can do it safely, a self driving car should (in the future when they really arrive) also be able to do it safely. But, what you describe does not meet the basic criteria for doing it safely. Regularly flowing at highway speeds in those conditions does not imply doing it safely, as much as you and those drivers might like it to. We read about pileups from time to time and the consequences of these are not trivial.